5 ms·

Then we should limit who people can vote for, since voters are so easy to manipulate into voting against their own interests. The basic principles of liberal de

Then we should limit who people can vote for, since voters are so easy to manipulate into voting against their own interests. The basic principles of liberal democracy assume that a person has an absolute right to make decisions for their own life. These kinds of restrictions are unconscionable restrictions on the right of free people to their personal autonomy.

vkou 9y ago
We aren't allowed to murder people either, but for some reason, most of us don't consider that to be the antithesis of liberal democracy.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  The basic principle of liberal democracy is that we have an absolute right to personal autonomy unless we violate other people's equal right to the same. Making it illegal to offer a digital token for sale to other consenting adults, without approval from a central authority, is unconscionable. Before endorsing yet another law that restricts our right to engage in voluntary interactions, consider this: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforcing-the-law-is-inherently-violent/488828/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforci...
  - PKop 9y ago
    These same people disagreeing with you would bend over backwards to decry the war on drugs for the same reasons you're articulating in this case..
  - chowells 9y ago
    You interfere with my right to personal autonomy by bankrupting yourself throwing good money after bad in stupid investments, leaving yourself destitute and in need of additional public services. Or do you also intend to claim that the poor should be allowed to die on the streets as punishment for not being rich?
    - Jabanga 9y ago
      No one has a right to force you to support someone who made themselves destitute. You're using one infringement of personal autonomy to justify another.
      - ericd 9y ago
        In which case I assume you're of the "taxes are an infringement on freedom" camp of extreme libertarian?
        Jabanga 9y ago
        I don't believe all taxes are an infringement on freedom. A tax on natural resource consumption, and to a lesser extent, immovable property within a state's jurisdiction, can be morally justified in my opinion. I also don't have a problem with a head tax, conditioned on the punishment for noncompliance being exile, rather than imprisonment. A tax on private transactions is an infringement on liberty in my opinion. On that note, it's interesting that the first 'War on Drugs' used taxes on private transactions as its avenue to prohibition. Since the government at the time didn't have the Constitutional authority (this is before the Supreme Court was utterly corrupted by politics) to outright ban drugs, what it did instead is require that all targeted drugs pay a stamp tax, and then simply refuse to issue the stamp. This shows the prohibitive nature of taxes on private transactions.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
cheetos 9y ago
There is simply a massive difference between the theory of democracy and its actual implementation. Your personal autonomy is restricted by the government, massively, period, generally for everyone's own good. They decide what and how much medicine you can put in your body. Whether you can gamble, and where, and on what, and how much. What drugs you can take. What speed you can drive. Whether you must go to school or not based on your age. Which food you can buy at the supermarket. What you are allowed to see on television. Where and when you may protest. What behavior is allowed in public and what is not. What speech is considered 'free' and what isn't. What machines you may operate and under what circumstances. Which financial transactions you may or may not participate in and the terms of those transactions. The type of home you build and it's specifications. Which countries you may or may not enter and under which circumstances. Whether you are allowed to work or not. It's just the way things are.
- stale2002 9y ago
  Yeah, it is just the way thing are. And till now, you had no other option. But it looks like things are changing with regards to finance. Because now, it is going to be much more difficult for the government to regulate your financial activities. The "way things are" is changing, and changing for the better. Don't like it? Then the government can send in its men with guns and attempt to stop it. The technology is getting better and better, though. So it will soon become extremely difficult for those men with guns to do anything at all with your untraceable, untraceable, and unstoppable financial activities. May the best group win. The government will need all the luck it can get.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  >Your personal autonomy is restricted by the government, massively, period, generally for everyone's own good. They decide what and how much medicine you can put in your body. Whether you can gamble, and where, and on what, and how much. What drugs you can take. What speed you can drive. Whether you must go to school or not based on your age. Which food you can buy at the supermarket. These restrictions violate people's basic rights and are to the material detriment of society at large. The more of a regulatory burden is placed on an industry, the more dysfunctional, bureaucratic and nepotistic it is.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

vkou 9y ago

We aren't allowed to murder people either, but for some reason, most of us don't consider that to be the antithesis of liberal democracy.

Jabanga 9y ago
The basic principle of liberal democracy is that we have an absolute right to personal autonomy unless we violate other people's equal right to the same. Making it illegal to offer a digital token for sale to other consenting adults, without approval from a central authority, is unconscionable. Before endorsing yet another law that restricts our right to engage in voluntary interactions, consider this: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforcing-the-law-is-inherently-violent/488828/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforci...
- PKop 9y ago
  These same people disagreeing with you would bend over backwards to decry the war on drugs for the same reasons you're articulating in this case..
- chowells 9y ago
  You interfere with my right to personal autonomy by bankrupting yourself throwing good money after bad in stupid investments, leaving yourself destitute and in need of additional public services. Or do you also intend to claim that the poor should be allowed to die on the streets as punishment for not being rich?
  - Jabanga 9y ago
    No one has a right to force you to support someone who made themselves destitute. You're using one infringement of personal autonomy to justify another.
    - ericd 9y ago
      In which case I assume you're of the "taxes are an infringement on freedom" camp of extreme libertarian?
      - Jabanga 9y ago
        I don't believe all taxes are an infringement on freedom. A tax on natural resource consumption, and to a lesser extent, immovable property within a state's jurisdiction, can be morally justified in my opinion. I also don't have a problem with a head tax, conditioned on the punishment for noncompliance being exile, rather than imprisonment. A tax on private transactions is an infringement on liberty in my opinion. On that note, it's interesting that the first 'War on Drugs' used taxes on private transactions as its avenue to prohibition. Since the government at the time didn't have the Constitutional authority (this is before the Supreme Court was utterly corrupted by politics) to outright ban drugs, what it did instead is require that all targeted drugs pay a stamp tax, and then simply refuse to issue the stamp. This shows the prohibitive nature of taxes on private transactions.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

cheetos 9y ago

There is simply a massive difference between the theory of democracy and its actual implementation. Your personal autonomy is restricted by the government, massively, period, generally for everyone's own good. They decide what and how much medicine you can put in your body. Whether you can gamble, and where, and on what, and how much. What drugs you can take. What speed you can drive. Whether you must go to school or not based on your age. Which food you can buy at the supermarket. What you are allowed to see on television. Where and when you may protest. What behavior is allowed in public and what is not. What speech is considered 'free' and what isn't. What machines you may operate and under what circumstances. Which financial transactions you may or may not participate in and the terms of those transactions. The type of home you build and it's specifications. Which countries you may or may not enter and under which circumstances. Whether you are allowed to work or not. It's just the way things are.

stale2002 9y ago
Yeah, it is just the way thing are. And till now, you had no other option. But it looks like things are changing with regards to finance. Because now, it is going to be much more difficult for the government to regulate your financial activities. The "way things are" is changing, and changing for the better. Don't like it? Then the government can send in its men with guns and attempt to stop it. The technology is getting better and better, though. So it will soon become extremely difficult for those men with guns to do anything at all with your untraceable, untraceable, and unstoppable financial activities. May the best group win. The government will need all the luck it can get.
Jabanga 9y ago
>Your personal autonomy is restricted by the government, massively, period, generally for everyone's own good. They decide what and how much medicine you can put in your body. Whether you can gamble, and where, and on what, and how much. What drugs you can take. What speed you can drive. Whether you must go to school or not based on your age. Which food you can buy at the supermarket. These restrictions violate people's basic rights and are to the material detriment of society at large. The more of a regulatory burden is placed on an industry, the more dysfunctional, bureaucratic and nepotistic it is.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]